CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

It is defined as the laws governing official steps to identify, process an d prosecute persons accused of
crime.

The method prescribed by law for the apprehension and prosecution of persons accused of any criminal
offense for their punishment in case of conviction.

JURISDICTION (Criminal Jurisidiction)

The power and authority of a court to take cognizance of an offense and to pronounce the judgment or
sentence provided by law after a trial in the manner prescribed.

The authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for it [People v. Mariano,
G.R. No. L-40527 (1976)]

Requisites

 Subject matter jurisdiction: the offense is one which the court is by law authorized to take
cognizance of
 Territorial jurisdiction: the offense must have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction
 Jurisdiction over the person: the person charged with the offense must have been brought in to
its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court.

All three requisites must concur before a court can acquire jurisdiction to try a case [Antiporda v.
Garchitorena, G.R. No. 133289(1999), citing Arula v. Espino, G.R. No. L-28949(1969)]

TYPES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

1. Inquisitorial
2. Accusatorial
3. Mixed System – used in Philippines

TYPES OF JURISDICTION ESSENTIAL IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

1. JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER

This refers to the right to act or the power and authority to hear and determine a cause [Gomez v.
Montalban, G.R. No. 174414 (2008)]

2. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED

The person charged with the offense must have been brought in to its forum for trial
1. Forcibly by warrant of arrest; or
2. Voluntary appearance or submission of the accused to the jurisdiction of the court

3. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

1|Page
The place where the criminal offense was committed not only determines the venue of the action but is
an essential element of jurisdiction [Alfelor v. Intia G.R.No. L-27590 (1976)]

This is to be determined by the facts alleged in the complaint or information as regards the place where
the offense charged was committed [Buaya v. Polo, G.R. No. 167764 (2009)]

JURISDICTION OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC)

CASES FALLING WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
All criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, EXCEPT
those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which
shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter [Sec. 20, BP 129]
Criminal cases commenced by information against the child upon determination of probable
cause by the prosecutor [Sec. 33, R.A. 9344, as amended by R.A. 10630], in places where there
are no family courts [Sec. 4(g), R.A. 9344]
Those where the penalty provided by law exceeds six (6) years imprisonment irrespective of the
fine
Those where the only penalty provided by the law is fine exceeding P4,000.00

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by first-level courts within their territorial
jurisdiction [Sec. 22, BP 129]
Concurrent original jurisdiction with MTCs over violations of R.A. 7610 (Child Abuse Act), as
amended, in cities or provinces where there are no family courts yet, depending on the
penalties prescribed for the offense charged [Sec. 16-A, R.A. 7610, as amended by R.A. 9231]
Cases of violence against women and children under R.A. 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act), in the absence
of the RTC designated as a Family Court in the place where the offense was committee
Those involving violations of the Omnibus Election Code

EXAMPLE OF CASES THAT PROVIDE FOR AN IMPRISONMENT OF BELOW 6 YEARS BUT WITHIN THE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF RTC

Exclusive jurisdiction over drug-related cases [Secs. 20, 61, 62, 90, R.A. 9165, see De Lima v.
Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781 (2017)]
Written defamation ( Art. 360 RPC )
Violations of intellectual property rights [A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC (2003); R.A. 8293]
Money laundering cases EXCEPT those committed by public officers and private persons who
are in conspiracy with such public officers shall be under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
[Sec. 5, R.A. 9160, as amended]
For offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan where the information a) does not allege any
damage to the government or any bribery; or b) the alleged damage to the government or the
bribery arising from the or closely related transactions are of an amount not exceeding P1
million [Sec. 4, P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 10660]

2|Page
 Violation of BP 22

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF MeTC, MTC IN CITIES, MTC, MCTC

Except in cases falling within the exclusive Jurisdiction of the CRTC and SB, the MTC shall exercise the
following:

All violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial
jurisdiction
All offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years irrespective of the amount of
fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability
arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount
thereof
Over offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence
Concurrent original jurisdiction with RTCs over violations of R.A. 7610 (Child Abuse Act), as
amended, in cities or provinces where there are no family courts yet, depending on the
penalties prescribed for the offense charged [Sec. 16-A, R.A. 7610, as amended by R.A. 9231]

Note: SC Administrative Circular No. 09-94 (1994):

Item c: The criminal jurisdiction of the first-level courts under Sec. 32(2) of B.P. 129, as amended
by R.A. 7691, has been increased to cover offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding
6 years irrespective of the amount of the fine. As a consequence, the RTCs have no more original
jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office,
where the offense is punishable by more than 4 years and 2 months up to 6 years.
Item d: The provisions of Sec. 32(2) of B.P. 129 as amended by R.A. 7691, apply only to offenses
punishable by imprisonment or fine, or both, in which cases the amount of the fine is
disregarded in determining the jurisdiction of the court.

 However, in cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine, the amount thereof shall
determine the jurisdiction of the court in accordance with the original provisions of Sec.
32(2) of B.P. 129 which fixed original exclusive jurisdiction of the first-level courts over
offenses punishable with a fine of not more P4,000.
 If the amount of the fine exceeds P4,000, the RTC shall have jurisdiction, including offenses
committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office
 However, this rule does not apply to offenses involving damage to property through
criminal negligence which are under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first-level
courts, irrespective of the amount of the imposable fine.

SPECIAL JURISDICTION
Decide on application for bail in criminal case in the absence of all RTC judges in the province or city.

3|Page
SANDIGANBAYAN
 Violations of:
1. RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
2. RA 1379 (An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor of The State Any Property Found To Have Been
Unlawfully Acquired by Public Officer or Employee)
3. Crimes mentioned in Book 2, Title VII, Section 2, Chapter 2 of the RPC (Indirect Bribery, Corruption of
Public officials, etc.) where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in
the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of
the offense
i. officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
[RA 6758

 Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by public
officials and employees mentioned above in relation to their office. The following must concur:

 An offense is deemed committed in relation to his office when it cannot exist without the office
 The office is a constituent element of the crime as defined in the statute
 The offense be intimately connected with the office of the offender
 The fact that the offense was committed in relation to the office must be alleged in the
Information [People v. Magallanes, G.R. No. 118013-14 (1995)]

Head of the National Prosecution Service: Prosecutor General : BENEDICTO A. MALCONTENTO

INFORMATION is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense subscribed by the

prosecutor and filed with the court.

COMPLAINT is a sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended
party, any peace officer, or other public officer, charged with the enforcement of the law violated.

 Penalty of offenses or felonies that requires preliminary investigation: 4 years, 2 months and 1
day
 Laws that governs the prescription of special laws: Act 3326 : AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS OF
PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS PENALIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES
AND TO PROVIDE WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO RUN
 Laws that governs the prescription of felonies: Revised Penal Code (Article 90)

4|Page
FELONIES THAT COULD NOT BE PROSECUTED DE OFFICIO AND MUST BE SUSBSCRIBED BY THE
OFFENDED PARTY (ACASA)

General rule: No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor

without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state
prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy [Sec. 4, Rule 112, as amended by A.M. 05-8-26-SC]

1. Adultery
2. Concubinage
3. Seduction
4. abduction
5. acts of lasciviousness

ORDER OF WHO CAN FILE (right to file the action shall be exclusive of all other persons and shall be
exercised successively in this order)

1. Parents
2. Grandparents
3. guardian
4. State – If the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she can file the complaint,
and she has no known parents, grandparents or guardian

 TRANSITORY OFFENSE: crimes where some acts material and essential to the crimes and
requisite to their commission occur in one municipality or territory and some acts are done
in another place.
1. Libel
2. Human Trafficking

 CONTINUING OFFENSE: consummated in one place, yet by nature of the offense, the
violation of the law is deemed continuing
1. Kidnapping

5|Page
TWO KINDS OF AMENDMENTS

1. FORMAL AMENDMENT
When:
- it does not alter the basis of the charge in THE information, nor did it result in any prejudice to the
other party. More so, if the documentary evidence involved in the case remained the same, and all are
available to the other party before trial.

Formal amendment merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the
original information, and which, therefore adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged
[Gabionza v. CA, G.R. No. 140311 (2001)]

Specifically:
1. New allegation which relates only to the range of the penalty that the court might impose in the
event of conviction.
2. An amendment which does not charge another offense different or distinct from that charged in the
original one
3. Additional allegation which do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as to cause surprise
to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume
4. An amendment which does not adversely affect any substantial right of the accused; and
5. An amendment that merely adds specifications to eliminate vagueness in the information and not to
introduce new and material facts, and merely stars with additional precision something which is already
contained in the original information and which adds nothing essential for conviction for The crime
charged.

2. SUBSTANTIAL
When:
1. The defense under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no longer be available
after the amendment is made
2. When any evidence that accused might have would be inapplicable to the complaint or information

Substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and
determinative of the jurisdiction of the court [Teehankee v. Madayag, G.R. No. 103102 (1992)]

Examples
1. Stating a different manner of committing the felony
2. Including conspiracy because such involves a change in the basic theory of the prosecution
3. Change in the date of commission of the offense that will be prejudicial to the accused

6|Page
REQUISITES IF AN AMENDMENT IS INTRODUCED AND IT DOWNGRADES THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE
CHARGED
1. Upon motion by the prosecutor
2. With notice to the offended party
3. with leave of court

 An offense consummated in one place: LOCAL CRIME

DUPLICITY OF THE OFFENSE

RULE 110 Sec. 13. Duplicity of the offense. – A complaint or information must charge only one offense,
except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.

WHAT IS THE RULE ON DUPLICITY OF OFFENSES?

General rule: A complaint or information must charge only one offense
Exception: when the law provides only one punishment for the various offenses (complex and
compound crimes under Article 48 of the RPC and special complex crimes)

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE FAILURE OF THE ACCUSED TO OBJECT TO A DUPLICITOUS INFORMATION?
If the accused fails to object before arraignment, the right is deemed waived, and he may be
convicted of as many offenses as there are charged

WHAT IS THE REMEDY OF AN ACCUSED IN CASE OF DUPLICITOUS OFFENSES CHARGED AGAINST HIM?
The accused may file a motion to quash on void complaint

LEGAL BASIS OF “EVERY PERSON CRIMINALLY LIABLE IS ALSO CIVILLY LIABLE”

Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also
civilly liable.

General Rule: When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising
from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action (Sec 1, Rule 111)
XPN:
 When no criminal action or information has been filed.
 When the offended party
• waives the civil action
• reserves the right to institute it separately
• instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action
• instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action and consolidated it after
• instituted an independent civil action (ICA)
GR: No filing fees for criminal actions
XPN: BP 22 (AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT
SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES)

7|Page
  Who has the option to consolidate criminal and civil actions? OFFENDED PARTY
 What court will try the consolidated civil and criminal action? CRIMINAL COURT, in a joint trial

Cases that mandatory consolidation of criminal and civil cases in required:

Instances where reservation to file the civil action separately shall not be allowed
1. B.P. 22 cases [Sec. 1(b), Rule 111]
2. Cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan [Sec. 4, P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 10660]
3. Tax cases [Sec. 7(b)(1), RA 9282]
4. Libel

SEPARATE ACTION FILED BY THE ACCUSED (claims prohibited in a criminal action)

No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal
case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a
separate civil action [Sec.1, Rule 111]

This action will proceed independently from the criminal case and needs only preponderance of
evidence: INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION

Independent civil actions

When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be
instituted [Art 29, NCC]

Actions under the Civil Code, specifically for quasidelict, violation of constitutional rights, defamation,
fraud, physical injuries, refusal or failure to render aid or protection by the members of the police or
the prosecuting attorney [Art. 32, 33, 34, 35 and 2176] remain separate, distinct, and independent of
any criminal prosecution although based on the same act [Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines v. People, G.R. No.
147703
(2004); Sec. 3, Rule 111]

Only a preponderance of evidence is required but in no case may the offended party recovers damages
TWICE for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action [Sec. 3, Rule 111]

PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
One which arises in a case, where the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved
therein and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal [People v. Consing, G.R. No. 148193
(2003)]

There is a prejudicial question only when the matter that has to be priorly decided by another authority
is one where the cognizance of which pertains to that authority and should not, under the

8|Page
circumstances, be passed upon by the court trying the criminal case[Rojas v. People, G.R. No. L-22237
(1974)]

ELEMENTS:
Rule 111 Section 7.Elements of prejudicial question.
The elements of a prejudicial question are:
(a) The previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised
in the subsequent criminal action, and
(b) The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

RULE 11 Sec 1 – FIRST LIEN

When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal,
temperate, or exemplary damages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or
information, the filing fees thereof shall constitute A FIRST LIEN on the judgment awarding such
damages.

ACTUAL DAMAGES – damages that there is no required filling fees even if the amount is specified in the
complaint

RULES IN FILING FEES

GR: No filing fees for actual damages claimed.
UNLESS: required by the rules
 BP 22 - filing fees shall be based on the amount of the check and shall be paid in full
 ESTAFA- filing fees shall be paid based on the amount involved

KINDS of DAMAGES [MENTAL]

 Moral
 Exemplary
 Nominal
 Temperate
 Actual
 Liquidated

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION - is an inquiry or a proceeding the purpose of which is to determine

whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed
and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.

THUS;
PI being a mere inquiry or a proceeding, is not therefore a trial and does not involve the examination of
witnesses by way of direct or cross-examination, nor requires a full and exhaustive display of the party's
evidence.

9|Page
PROBABLE CAUSE - the existence of such facts and circumstances as would lead a person of ordinary
caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person charged is guilty of
the crime subject of the investigation.

IN SHORT: mere probability of guilt. Requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which
would justify a conviction. It does not import absolute certainty, as it is based merely on opinion and
reasonable belief, nor on clear and convincing proof, nor inquire to the sufficiency of the evidence.

WHO CAN CONDUCT PI

In general, the following may conduct the determination of existence of probable cause in a PI

(1) Provincial/city prosecutors and their assistants

(2) National and regional state prosecutors

(3) Other officers as may be authorized by law [Sec. 2, Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC]

(4) Ombudsman

A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC: 1st-level (MTC, MeTC, MCTC) judges have no power to conduct preliminary
investigations

WHEN PI is required:

A preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information

for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1)
day without regard to the fine.

NOT REQUIRED WHEN

For offense imposing a lesser penalty.

XPN: When PI is not required even though the offense involved would normally calls for PI

IN CASE OF Warrantless arrest:

INQUEST PROCEEDING is a proceeding shall takes place, to be conducted by the inquest prosecutor.

- in case of unavailability of the inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed directly with the proper
court by the offended party or peace officer on the basis of he affidavit of the offended part or arresting
officer or person.

EXE TO EXE:

Person arrested without warrant may ask for preliminary investigation.

10 | P a g e
REQUISITES:

1. Ask for preliminary investigation before the complaint or information is filed, or within 5 days from
the time he learns of its filing (as for the latter, the motion shall be filed in the court where the
information or complaint was filed, as said court already acquires jurisdiction over the said case –Motion
to conduct PI)

2. Must sign a waiver of the provision of Art. 125 of the RPC, as amended, in the presence of his counsel.

NOTE: PI conducted in pursuance herein, shall be terminated within 15 days from its inception.

Art. 125 of the RPC - requires the delivery of person arrested to the proper judicial authorities within the
period of twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent;
eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent and
thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their
equivalent.

WHAT IS THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT? Death penalty only

WHO SHOULD SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN AFFIDAVITS?

The affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to before any

1. prosecutor
2. government official authorized to administer oath
3. in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public

Each of who must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they
voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.

ARREST is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense.

WARRANTLESS ARREST

RULE 113 Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a)When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense; [IN FLAGRANTE]

(b)When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and [HOT
PURSUIT]

11 | P a g e
(c)When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another. [ESCAPEE]

(d) OTHER LAWFUL WARRANTLESS ARRESTS

 For the purpose of surrendering the accused,the bondsmen may arrest him or, upon written
authority endorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking, cause him to be arrested by a police
officer or any other person of suitable age and discretion [Sec. 23, Rule 114]
 An accused released on bail may be rearrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts
to depart from the Philippines without permission of the court where the case is pending [Sec.
23, Rule 114]

Note: A legitimate warrantless arrest necessarily includes the authority to validly search and seize from
the offender (1) dangerous weapons, and (2) those that may be used as proof of the commission of an
offense [People v. Montilla, G.R. No. 123872, (1998)]

Life of a warrant of arrest: 10 days

KINDS OF DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE

1. EXECUTIVE

- One made during preliminary investigation.

- it is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is given broad discretion to
determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those whom he believes to have committed the
crime and those who should be held for trial.

2. JUDICIAL

- One made by the judge

- To ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused.

- The judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, THERE IS NECESSITY for placing
the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice

- The judge determination of the existence of probable cause is only limited for the purpose of deciding
whether the arrest warrant should be issued against the accused.

12 | P a g e
WITHDRAWAL OF THE INFORMATION ALREADY FILED IN COURT

ISSUE: whether the trial court acting on a motion to dismiss a criminal case filed by the Provincial Fiscal
upon instruction of the Sec of Justice to whom the case was elevated for review, may refuse to grant the
motion and insist in the arraignment and trial on the merits? (Crespo vs. Mogul 151 SCRA 462)

RULING: YES

Once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case or dismissal or
acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the exclusive jurisdiction, competence and discretion
of the trial court. Required to make an independent evaluation and assessment of the merits of the case
and the evidence on record of the prosecution. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of
the prosecution of criminal cases even while he case is already in court, he cannot impose his opinion on
the trial court. And while the secretary of justice has the power to alter or modify the resolution of his
subordinate and thereafter direct the withdrawal of the case, he cannot, however, impose his will on
the court.

PRIMO MINA, FELIX DE VERA, POMPEYO MAGALI, BERNADETTE AMOR AND PURIFICACION DELA CRUZ
BACK vs CA.

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the resolutions of the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor
(ORSP) concerning lighter charges may be brought directly to the Court of Appeals (CA), without the
need to be reviewed by the Secretary of Justice (SoJ).

The said petitioners had questioned the Ilocos Region ORSP’s dismissal of their perjury complaint against
Rodolfo Tandoc. But, the CA threw it out in a May 22, 2017 resolution that cited the failure to go to the
SoJ first before elevating the matter to the courts.

The SC disagreed, saying Department Circular Number 70-A delegated to ORSPs the authority to “rule
with finality” on cases that fell within the jurisdiction of Metropolitan, Municipal or Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts (MeTCs/MTCs/MTCCs) and were not filed in the National Capital Region (NCR). While the
SoJ may exercise his power to review the ORSP’s resolutions in light criminal cases, he did not do so in
this specific case. Thus, the SC said the ORSP resolution attained finality.

“As such, petitioners have already exhausted their administrative remedies and may now go to the CA
via a petition for certiorari,” read the decision penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe. Since
the case was previously dismissed on a technicality, the SC said it should be remanded back to the CA to
be resolved on its merits.

13 | P a g e